Larvatus Prodeo

There’s been a lot of discussion sparked by the Productivity Commission report into Parental Leave about “middle class welfare”. Because the PC also made recommendations about the baby bonus, and therefore there have been predictable calls to share the dosh equally with non-working mothers, paid parental leave is being conceptualised as “welfare” rather than as a workplace entitlement. The Commission is quite explicit that the goal of the recommendations is to ensure that leave (which in itself as a concept only works if it’s related to work) is available for parents – primarily for working women. That’s why it will be paid by employers (who will later claim the amount back from the government) – to symbolise that it is an entitlement pertaining to employment rights and not a “hand out” or “welfare”. I think that needs to be recognised.

But perhaps some of the conceptual slippage (which is really important politically) is understandable. The policy has more than one aim – and one of its aims is to foster early childhood development, and the assumption here is that direct involvement of a parent or parents is crucial at the early stages of infancy. But, nevertheless, it is worth reinforcing the fact that insofar as non working mothers have made a choice not to work, that under the current policy design, 10 hours a week for a year would be enough to trigger the paid parental leave entitlement.

So, that’s that. But there are some ambivalences around all this, some of which I share. Writing today in The Australian, George Megalogenis launches an assault on “middle class welfare”, giving readers a history lesson about when family payments took off, and pointing out that in the age of Menzies they were small change. The implication seems to be explicitly that politicians are in the habit of tossing bribes around, and that virtuous self-reliance was the norm for 50s and 60s Australia. What this ignores, though, is that Menzies Land was surrounded by high tarriff walls and as a result of the Australian settlement, had a highly regulated wage system that was openly premised (from Higgins onwards) on the male wage as a breadwinner’s wage sufficient to support two adults and the then average number of children.

As Kim pointed out in a post here a month or so ago, reflecting on Betty Friedan’s legacy, the second wave of feminism and the movement for women’s workforce participation coincided with the increasing inability of a sole wage to sustain the level of consumer demand that sustained a consumption oriented “modern industrial economy”. Feminism, if you like, lent a hand to save capitalism. Megalogenis is right to point to remaining hurdles in the tax/welfare mix to participation in the labour market, but I want to trouble the logic that this should be the sole aim of policy.

Continue reading ‘Of welfare policy, work, entitlements and parental leave’